Is law school possible at 62?

I'm not sure my analysis would change one way or another, but I am curious.

Other then your thoughts that maybe the LSAT scores are getting better (despite the massive increase of individuals multiple takings of the exam over the last decade or so), I fail to see any standardized test scores improving greatly, weather they be high school math/reading/history/geography, ACT, SAT, LSAT, GRE. Pick your poison, the population has NOT suddenly gotten smarter because you grew up watching baby Einstein videos.

The LSAT is a test that can be gamed. Some people will do really well at it others will not. This is not a function of who was President when you graduated high school.

I'm not sure my analysis would change one way or another, but I am curious.

Other then your thoughts that maybe the LSAT scores are getting better (despite the massive increase of individuals multiple takings of the exam over the last decade or so), I fail to see any standardized test scores improving greatly, weather they be high school math/reading/history/geography, ACT, SAT, LSAT, GRE. Pick your poison, the population has NOT suddenly gotten smarter because you grew up watching baby Einstein videos.

The LSAT is a test that can be gamed. Some people will do really well at it others will not. This is not a function of who was President when you graduated high school.

The problem is that you tried to use a drop in standardized test scores to justify your assertion that the younger generations were not any smarter than the older ones. I stated that your reliance on those scores to compare the scholastic aptitude of the younger and older generations was misplaced.

Standardized tests are better predictors of status quo demographics than of scholastic aptitude. Any changes in test scores are directly attributable to demographic changes in the population of students that take the test - not the general intelligence of a population. In 1963, for example, test scores declined as the demographics of the test-takers moved away from the white, Anglo-Saxon, upper class norm and towards a multiethnic, economically heterogeneous sample.

Instead of relying on test scores, I rely on the sheer number of people getting a college education these days as opposed to those of days past. I currently know of no studies that support my position that the current generation is smarter, however, if more people are getting an advanced education, it stands to reason that the population, as a whole, is becoming smarter.

At any rate, it seems as though you cannot separate the forest from the trees. Even assuming that you could somehow prove that the younger generations are not smarter than the older generations, my analysis of OP's original question - whether she should go to law school - does not change. For all of the aforementioned reasons, OP should not go to law school.

The person in question is not coming off as someone who spent the last 50 years picking turnips. She has informed us that she has earned a graduate degree (something most of her competition on the LSAT will not have accomplished). She has worked in a larger number of industries then the number of jobs most law clerks have held. From what is being presented there is absolutely no reason to suspect that she should not have the do well not only at taking the LSAT and for that matter well in school itself.

The person in question is not coming off as someone who spent the last 50 years picking turnips. She has informed us that she has earned a graduate degree (something most of her competition on the LSAT will not have accomplished). She has worked in a larger number of industries then the number of jobs most law clerks have held. From what is being presented there is absolutely no reason to suspect that she should not have the do well not only at taking the LSAT and for that matter well in school itself.

Although, in general, getting an education does not mean a person is smart, I would venture a guess that, on average, someone who has not gone to college would do much worse than someone who has gone to college on the LSAT. Would you agree or disagree?

The reason I stated that people today are generally smarter was not to detract from OP's education. I'm simply stating that she faces increasing competition for the scholarships that do exist. Getting a full scholarship is no cakewalk - her post did not harp on the costs of law school and seemed to suggest that getting a scholarship was a foregone conclusion:

Well, I will say this - there is plenty of Senior-type competitive testosterone on this website. John 4040 thank you for your exceedingly candid outlook on my lifeís remaining cognitive time. But I donít remember asking for your opinion of my reasons for wanting to go to law school. In your haste to share your negative insight you missed the point of the post. Reading comprehension is the concept of understanding what is written not what you perceived. I never mentioned a scholarship one way or another. Neither did I say I was "wanting to derive profit from it and the ability to legally protect yourself ". Again, I was asking for advice in the grand scheme of going to law school at my age in general and therefore turning to others who have achieved that goal.

All of my experience has shown me that without the ability to legally insulate yourself, you are less likely to have the ability to exercise your personal rights. I want to learn more about the law and the only way to do it is to go to law school. If I make it through and can still represent myself in a professional manner then I see myself as an individual's advocate.

What should a reader infer from this statement? Are you willing to go to law school if you derive no monetary profit from it and do not learn how to litigate?

Again, I was asking for advice in the grand scheme of going to law school at my age in general...

What does "advice in the grand scheme of going to law school at my age in general" consist of? Doesn't it include a discussion of the costs and benefits of going to law school at your age? If not, then color me stupid.

The kids have grown up in a world where everyone gets a trophy and are amazed that somethings actually require work, as such, it would be truly foolhardy to rule someone out because they did not come through the same happy little world that you have.

That is so true! I am so amazed at how naive and entitled people particularly in law school are. In undergrad and everything else it was the same way. Bill Gates had the best quotes ever. Listed Below

To anyone with kids of any age, here's some advice. Bill Gates recently gave a speech at a High School about 11 things they did not and will not learn in school. He talks about how feel-good, politically correct teachings created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept set them up for failure in the real world.

Rule 1: Life is not fair -- get used to it!

Rule 2: The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.

Rule 3: You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.

Rule 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.

Rule 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping -- they called it opportunity.

Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.

Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you are. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.

Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.

Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.

Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.

Also if you want to go law school and are 62 go for it. Everybody wants to say don't do this don't do that, because something bad might happen. You know what things don't work out sometimes and sometimes they do. You have been around 62 years and I imagine you have taken some risks in your life and sometimes it works sometimes not that is life. Realistically, if you have lived 62 and with all of that life experience you want to be a lawyer don't let some 25 year kid tell you what is best for you.

You only have one chance at life and there is nothing worse than asking yourself what would have happened had I done X Y or Z. Obviously, use a bit of common sense. However, going to law school is not like throwing 100,000 on Red 18 in Vegas. You get an education out of it and it can help you. I have already helped two of my friends deal with their landlords who were trying to blatantly screw them over and with my one year of legal education I was able to help them and it was a good feeling.

In your situation it would be best to go to a lower ranked school and get scholarship money. However, people like John4040 who go to top schools think you can only do any good if you work in BigLaw or for a judge. However, the majority of people don't have millions to throw down the drain on BigLaw lawyers and you can have a very positive effect on people's lives with a law school education. Good luck to you.